Oh my goodness, I thought I had a lot more time to prepare, Mr. Chair.
I will continue with the line of questioning that Mr. Chambers had started. I'm a little bit surprised—because I have a lot of regard for my colleague—by this line of questioning.
I will say to you that if we do not try to do everything we can to try to get to net zero under a good regulatory regime and with prudent risk management and some of the other key things that we talked about today, we will be far worse off. The costs would be much higher. We're all policy-makers here, so if we put our heads in the sand and say that it sounds like a lot of money, that we're not quite sure if we'll get there because it sounds really complicated, that it's going to be difficult and it won't be linear, so let's not do anything—that's crazy.
Climate change is happening. Have you guys actually seen The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that just came out yesterday? It raised not one alarm bell, but a massive number of alarm bells. They're saying we are not on a path that is going to limit our climate change to 1.5°C.
It is urgent that we stop sort of figuring out if it's $2 trillion or however many trillions of dollars. The cost of not doing everything we can in a responsible way with good policy to bring public sector partners under good risk management under a good regulatory regime is unacceptable. That is why we are here doing this study.
I'm trying to see what my question is, Mr. Chair, because right now I'm finding what I just heard a couple of minutes ago a little bit crazy. Again, I have high regard for my colleagues on the other side.
Recently we've been talking in Canada about the importance of green hydrogen. I wouldn't mind getting some thoughts on why Canada should continue to invest in it.
Maybe I'll get both Mr. Youngman and Mr. Usher to speak on that.